D&D 3.x [3.5] Archer changes

[Kae'Yoss]

[pokes head up]

The flaw with rapid shot is that the prerequisite feat Point Blank Shot gives you a +1 on ranged attacks. So the net penalty with Rapid Shot is only -1/-1. This is why some people feel Rapid Shot should be -3/-3.

[ducks and scurries away]

Point Blank Shot works only within 30ft, which brings you dangerously close to the enemy (one move action, and they can start to grapple. Just hope you can grap your dagger in time, or else you can't even make an AoO....)

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Archer's disadvantages

In neither case has it really been unbalancing. DR is a major problem unless you can talk your buddy Wizard or Cleric into GMWing your arrows, and even then, unless he GMWs quite a few you are going to run out rather quickly. 50 arrows can disappear in a few rounds when an archer is making 3+ attacks per round.

Unless you're the cleric buddy yourself I play a cleric archer you see. But if your buddy cleric / wizard won't cast GMW on your arrows, he's pretty stupid. 50 arrows with, say +3 to hit and damage, means 100+ points of damage, because archer usually have no trouble hitting with at least 2/3 of their arrows. With a 3rd / 4th level spell, not too bad eh? And it just gets more powerful at higher levels.

Good idea is also to buy that wizard / cleric a pearl of power for those spells. 16000 gp for a lifetime supply of magic arrows isn't a bad investment.

And you can play wisely and conserve the magic ammo if you're short on them. Don't use them on easy creatures without DR.

 

[green slime]

So archers have no PrC's, but melee fighters do? They can take one that gives them even more in the field they are already good in (better attacks, more AC, more damage), but archers don't? Again, the wrong way to deal with the situation, for PrC's mean power, and so melee characters will start to seriously outshine archers. (Unless, you do away with those melee PrC's - and, if you're at it, with the caster PrC's!)

No... I just don't allow those munchkinned archer PrC into my game. The same way I disallow other PrC that seem all-out munchkin to me. YMMV. However I have yet to see a pure melee PrC which is parallel to the peerless archer. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough... As soon as someone mentions picking a level of this and a level of that, my alarm bells go off... Archers are plenty efficient without the need for power attacking at range, completely ignoring cover, or such.

About Rapid Shot vs. Two Weapon Fighting (using what we know of 3.5):

To get an additional ranged attack, the archer has to take two feats (unless they put together point blank shot and rapid shot, which I doubt, since they don't belong together), two-weapon fighting only takes one feat. Also, you can get more than 4 attacks with two-weapon fighting, for there's improved and greater two-weapon fighting, while there is no improved rapid shot, and no greater rapid shot.

hmmm... I was saying I didn't see the problem with Rapid Shot , I saw flaws in SKR's evaluation, and you are... agreeing with me? I hope so

I disagree with your fix though. In my mind it is enough to nerf the no cost supply of highly magical arrows through the overabundant use of GMW. This may be accomplished in a number of ways: reducing the number of ammunition affected per casting, or assigning a cost per casting. I prefer reducing the amount of ammunition affected.

 

[Caliber]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Archer's disadvantages

Unless you're the cleric buddy yourself I play a cleric archer you see. But if your buddy cleric / wizard won't cast GMW on your arrows, he's pretty stupid. 50 arrows with, say +3 to hit and damage, means 100+ points of damage, because archer usually have no trouble hitting with at least 2/3 of their arrows. With a 3rd / 4th level spell, not too bad eh? And it just gets more powerful at higher levels.

Good idea is also to buy that wizard / cleric a pearl of power for those spells. 16000 gp for a lifetime supply of magic arrows isn't a bad investment.

And you can play wisely and conserve the magic ammo if you're short on them. Don't use them on easy creatures without DR.

Cleric Archers are often beasts of a different color (abuse of the Persistent Spell feat, not that I'm leveling any accusations at you)

True, GMW is a pretty good investment, if your party always works together and is completely unselfish (work together as a group? bah! thats for sissies!)

I'll admit that GMW can go a long way and thats one of the problems. My games don't have it because we lack that teamwork thing. But in a game where GMWs are doled out regularly ...

Thats why I actually approve of the change to +1/4 in GMW and wouldn't even complain if the target was changed to 1 weapon, ommitting any special clause for ammo.

Sorry if my first post was a little dense.

 

[Numion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Archer's disadvantages

Cleric Archers are often beasts of a different color (abuse of the Persistent Spell feat, not that I'm leveling any accusations at you)

Actually we don't even use that feat. Usually just quickened Divine Favors and normal Divine Powers, depending on your BAB. So the abuse you're suggesting is mostly of the rule that let's arrows and bows bonuses to stack.

 

[Will]

I think the problem stems from one simple thing, that a bow's enhancement does not apply to DR calculations.

I know that my archer wouldn't bother with GrMW on arrows consistently if it weren't for this factor, and I suspect others would also be more reluctant.

The problem is that at 6+ levels, an archer without magic arrows is likely to get into a fight he'll be helpless in. Oh look, a DR 10/+1 guy. I have regular arrows. I guess I'll, er, aid you guys. Have fun.

I'd be happy with 'bows help to hit, arrows help to damage' if the effect were 'cheaper.'

I'd be happy with 'enhancements don't stack' if the bow's enhancement _did_ apply in DR calculations. Given that energy forms (flaming) apply to ammunition, I don't see why the arrow can't carry the bonus.

Personally, I think archers are fine right now. In a proper game, there are many situations that favor close-in fighters. But these changes, IMO, would be balanced.

 

[Pax]

Why, exactly is rapid shot superior to TWF? Both require 2 feats to use, both suffer a -2 to all attacks (if you have the TWF and Ambi feats) TWF gets 1.5 Str bonus to damage on 2 successful hits, while archery doesn't get any bonus to damage.

One of Rapid Shot's prereuisites is Point Blank Shot -- which gives +1 to hit and damage, within 30'.

TWF has no equivalent.

and for those who say: "but what about the mighty X?" If the campaign is run properly they should be nigh on as rare as a magical bow!

No, they shouldn't. They're under the special equipment section of the DMG. Rarer than a normal longbow, but a darned sight more common than even a +1 bow; a Mighty(+2) Composite Longbow should be no rarer than a crate of alchemist's fire vials.

 

[Darklone]

A big problem with archers may be that they are usually really good at escaping or winning grapples due to high BAB, higher-than-average strength and high dex.
And some DMs seem to allow archers with spiked gauntlets or bladed boots to make AoOs...

Ruleswise, the D&D archer is ok offensive wise IMHO, but his defense is too strong.

 

[Bauglir]

** House rule alert **

Magical effects on bows and ammunition do not stack.

Magical bows (and other ranged 'launchers') when drawn, *create* an arrow with the same magical properties as the parent bow. The arrow exists for 1 full round, then vanishes.

If the bow is drawn with an arrow nocked, then no arrow is created. In this case, any to-hit effects come either from the bow, or the arrow, whichever is greater. Any to-damage effects will be applied only from the arrow.

So, for example, a +1 flaming arrow fired from a +3 distance frost bow would be fired with a +3 to hit, and a doubled range increment, but would hit as a +1 flaming arrow for purposes of damage, and of DR.

If the same bow were to be drawn empty, a +3 frost arrow would come into being.

** End house rule **

Something that's been brewing while I was reading this thread.

The 'create arrows' thing was meant as a way to avoid archers carrying around barrels of arrows, which I see as more of a nuisance than a limitation. If that's not to your taste, you could change it to say that the bow imbues its effects onto non-magical arrows nocked (for 1 round).

Thoughts?

 

[RigaMortus]

If they are going to change GMW so that you add +1 every 4 levels (instead of 3), then maybe they should incorporate ammo into that as well. What I mean is, have the spell only able to affect a bundle of 10 arrows/bolts/bullets every 4 levels. So at spell level 1-7 you can enchant 10 arrows at +1 each per casting, levels 8-11 you can enchant 20 arrows to +2 each per casting, and so on... Up to a max of 50 (which I think just works out).